The Case, so far...

[Tuba]

In the Telegraph.co.UK for September 10, Jane Tanner is quoted as having seen both Gerry McCann & Jeremy Wilkins ca. 9:15 p.m. This is but one of many newspaper reports that repeat that. But Wilkins is consistent in saying that he never saw her.

 

[Texana]

In the Telegraph.co.UK for September 10, Jane Tanner is quoted as having seen both Gerry McCann & Jeremy Wilkins ca. 9:15 p.m. This is but one of many newspaper reports that repeat that. But Wilkins is consistent in saying that he never saw her.

I missed that! But Gerry did not see Jane either, according to his testimony.

Honestly, I think the testimony of the Tapas 9--in being so adamant they saw Murat that night, and Jane's "I saw a man with a bundle oh wait the bundle was a child wearing pajamas just like Madeleine's" first-then testimony were two things that early on, raised concerns with the Portuguese police.

Sure, Jane may not have been noticed, although Jeremy Wilkins made it a point to say he felt he would have seen anyone else there--and as someone not a member of the Tapas 9, he is perhaps a more objective witness--Or she might not have been standing where she thought she was.

Jane's testimony cannot be considered concrete evidence of an abductor. It is what she thinks or believes she saw--but not necessarily, as with all eyewitnesses, what actually happened.

 

[CaliKid]

In a newspaper report written 4 months after the fact, I would be highly suspicious of Jane Tanner's claims of seeing Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins. Questions have been posted all summer on many forums about why the three didn't notice each other in such a small space, and this just sounds like more spin to me.

 

[Texana]

In a newspaper report written 4 months after the fact, I would be highly suspicious of Jane Tanner's claims of seeing Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins. Questions have been posted all summer on many forums about why the three didn't notice each other in such a small space, and this just sounds like more spin to me.

Jane is the least reliable of the three in terms of her testimony, simply because she changed it so much.

Again, I don't think she means to be deceptive, but after a few glasses of wine, in the evening, and especially with the shock of "They've taken her!' reverberating, it's very easy to get confused about what you saw, when you saw it.

 

[Dr. Creepin]

Yes, Tanner changed her story four months later. First she saw a man carrying a child in a blanket heading towards the beach, then it was a man carrying a child in pink pyjamas, towards Murat's house. But she didn't recognise her friend's daughter? Very odd...

 

[Pinkhammer]

Maybe Jane Tanner will be the first of the Tapas Group to break. There have been reports that she is "suicidal". Or is that being put out there because Jane knows too much and some might want to silence her permanently?

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

Maybe Jane Tanner will be the first of the Tapas Group to break. There have been reports that she is "suicidal". Or is that being put out there because Jane knows too much and some might want to silence her permanently?

You mean like when the Aunt said that the kidnapper probably sedated Madeline to keep her quite? So if Jane turns up dead, she was suicidal? :doh:

 

[Barnaby]

Maybe Jane Tanner will be the first of the Tapas Group to break. There have been reports that she is "suicidal". Or is that being put out there because Jane knows too much and some might want to silence her permanently?

Any links for this report of Jane Tanner being suicidal, Pink? I also saw chat that her & Oldfield have taken a lot of sick leave would love a link for that also. I haven't read any of this maybe it is just gossip?

 

[docwho3]

Could be. Or does it simply mean what was remembered changed as time went on. When a stressful event happens like a little girl goes missing and people wish very much to help then even if they do remember something, what is remembered and its details can easily become skewed and change over time. And yes people can also remember things that were not there in some cases. But it is not a certainty that is what happened in this case. It is only one possibility out of many.

Even without stress memory can be tricky. Try this: Go to a restaurant with a room full of people and, if they let you, take a picture of the room full of people. Now eat your meal and then go out to your car and write down a description of everyone you saw at the moment the pic was snapped and what they wore and what they were eating and if they were carrying anything what it was.

Don't read it back when you are finished just seal it in a dated envelope.
Keep the picture you took sealed up in its own place and do not look at it at all until the end of this whole experimment.

Now repeat the writng and description part, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, in two weeks and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Now repeat the writng and description part again in a month from that last description, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Now repeat the writng and description part again in two weeks past the last description, trying to remember every possible new detail you can, and again just seal it up in a dated envelope.

Finally sit down and open each envelope in order and see what happened to your memory and description of the events. You may be surprised at the results.

This is the end of the experiment so compare your writings with the picture. How did it go? Did you miss things that showed up in the picture? Were people there you had forgotten? Were people in different places or positions or dressed differently than you had written? Had your descriptions changed over time? Was any discrepency a result of you imagining things?

Let me know how it goes.

Are you paying for the meal at the Restaurant? :dance: Just kidding...

I see what you are saying, but from seeing a man "carrying something" to a man ( now Murratt) carrying a child with pink pajamas and flowers on them is a HUGE difference.

Thanks for the good post.

To me, the change in description is the same as going from "I saw someone sitting in the booth in the corner eating and he had red hair." to "I saw a man in the booth and he had on blue jeans, a yellow shirt and was eating a pizza."

Or to use an example from real life: There was a murder once in a small town where I lived. The killer was related to some locals but had not lived in the town for years and suddenly moved back to live with his relatives.

Several witnesses saw the car he drove when he snatched a girl right off a country road just outside of town. They especially concentrated on its back end for some reason. The eyewitness descriptions of tail lights on that car grew larger and larger and more detailed as time went on and even gained more importance in peoples minds. This was not more accurate with time but was due to memory glitches and psychologic pressures such as the strong desire in people to remember something that would help catch the unknown and scary killer, and these pressures warped and distorted the memory in some cases. (The killer was caught and convicted anyway.)

My point is I am not convinced in this case of the missing little girl that there was any attempt to lie about what was seen but I also am not convinced that what was remembered was accurate either. At this point I just don't know.

 

[docwho3]

. . .First a man carrying a bundle wrapped in a blanket that could have been a child & heading towards the supermarket.
Then she actually identified Madeleines pyjamas, where had the blanket that was covering her gone?
Then she changed to saying that it actually was Madeleine.
Then the guy was going towards Murats house!

The thing that I cannot understand is why she has not been hauled back for questioning & indeed made an arguido!

Another thought has occured to me about this memory change. Do we have each of these stories directly from Jane herself on camera in an interview? Or do we have more "leaks" form the portuguese L.E. trying to manipulate the case?

 

[daffodil]

If she saw a strange man carrying Madeleine why didnt she say something to him or call out?

 

[Tuba]

I've been reviewing her statements in the news. She saw the back of the figures. The child had no slippers or shoes. The bundleman was 5'10" and about 35 yrs. of age. He had a dark jacket on and beige trousers with the shiny black shoes. I think there was no assurance that the child was only asleep or chloroformed, not dead.

 

[Pinkhammer]

Barnaby...no links. Morag reported it here on WS.

I do believe Jane is the one most likely to succumb to the pressure of the Tapas Pact of Silencers.

 

[Pinkhammer]

Tuba...what gets me is the many details in Jane's testimony. Overly-detailed; often a sign of lying. She's got his description down pat, even to the color and style of his shoes. According to witnesses, the path was not brightly lit. And yet she noticed the color of his shoes?

 

[AfterMidnight]

I will try to find one of the many articles that related Jane saw Jeremy & post the source here for you. I've been thinking about all of the figures from the tapas party who were looking into the apt. bldg. checking on various children. So many people, so many trips. An abductor was therefore taking an even greater risk and finding less and less opportunity. But if there had been information passed & stalking, that person also had to know he/she had but this one last night to strike. How could the kidnapper bet on himself though? The odds were so high against him slipping in, finding the victim, making his snatch and getting away in the amount of time he had free of observation. Was he high on a drug? Or was he a burglar who didn't expect a child awake? I cannot forget all of the recent burglaries (that preceded Madeleine's disappearance).

There would have been no problem "slipping in, finding the victim, making his snatch, and getting away. . ." IF the perp had someone, or several someones, on the lookout who could have warned him. And, it does seem as if some employees were keeping a VERY close eye on the McCanns.

 

[gord]

Tuba...what gets me is the many details in Jane's testimony. Overly-detailed; often a sign of lying. She's got his description down pat, even to the color and style of his shoes. According to witnesses, the path was not brightly lit. And yet she noticed the color of his shoes?

again I am very intersted in where you have got all this information . As far as I can see Jane Tanner has not made any public statements in connection to the case - none that I can see - no interviews with the press - indeed the whole group as a whole have been very quiet . I think they have made one " group " statement .

Jane Tanner has made her statements to the Police - but yet everyone seems to know the minutae of detail of what she actualy said - how come ?

 

[ThoughtFox]

again I am very intersted in where you have got all this information . As far as I can see Jane Tanner has not made any public statements in connection to the case - none that I can see - no interviews with the press - indeed the whole group as a whole have been very quiet . I think they have made one " group " statement .

Jane Tanner has made her statements to the Police - but yet everyone seems to know the minutae of detail of what she actualy said - how come ?

Gord: That story has been widely reported and never denied - most papers that reported it said it came from "police sources."
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/0909_maddie2.shtml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2418919.ece

However, I hate to tell you this, but the most detailed account of that story came from - guess who? - Gerry McCann and the police. He made a statement that was filmed by Sky News, and the description was given either by him or the police, or both ( I need to find the video), of the "mystery man" seen by Jane Tanner was much more detailed than anything before.

So that's why people are still talking about it - blame Gerry.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...+transcript&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Gerry McCann read a brief statement in which he and his wife Kate said they believed the sighting was relevant to the search for Madeleine.

He said: "We feel sure that this sighting of a man with what appeared to be a child in his arms is both significant and relevant to Madeleine's abduction."

He said the family welcomed the decision of the police to release the information and made a fresh appeal for anyone with information about Madeleine's disappearance to come forward.

Missing for three weeksMr McCann added: "Any information no matter how unimportant it might be could be vital in helping the Portuguese police to find our daughter. We wish for nothing more than to bring Madeleine home with us safe and well."

The man is described as white, aged between 35 and 40, and about 5ft 10ins tall. He has short hair and was wearing a dark jacket with light-coloured trousers.

His description was given to police a short time after Madeleine went missing.

Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, of the Policia Judiciaria, said the suspect was possibly carrying a child or an object that might have appeared to have been a child.

He appealed for the man, or anyone who knows about him, to come forward.

EDIT: The video of Gerry talking about that "lead" is right there on the news page at the link above.

 

[gord]

Gord: That story has been widely reported and never denied - most papers that reported it said it came from "police sources."
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/0909_maddie2.shtml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2418919.ece

However, I hate to tell you this, but the most detailed account of that story came from - guess who? - Gerry McCann and the police. He made a statement that was filmed by Sky News, and the description was given either by him or the police, or both ( I need to find the video), of the "mystery man" seen by Jane Tanner was much more detailed than anything before.

So that's why people are still talking about it - blame Gerry.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...+transcript&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&ie=UTF-8



EDIT: The video of Gerry talking about that "lead" is right there on the news page at the link above.

Thanks for that - yes I now remember seeing the interview where Gerry decribed the man down to his black shoes .

Great this should go down as hard facts !!

If we go with scenario that the Tapas group are all lying then they must have got their stories down pretty quick

What I dont get is all the reports that she changed her story four times etc

I dont have a view one way or not about the reliability of Tanner as an eyewitness - I have never seen her utter a word -

 

[ThoughtFox]

I dont have a view one way or not about the reliability of Tanner as an eyewitness - I have never seen her utter a word -

Right, so the only "hard fact" is that Gerry was glad that the police released Jane Tanner's description of the man.

That does not mean that the description was correct, or valid, or even true, just that Gerry agreed to the release of the information that Jane gave.

Gerry wasn't supposed to have seen the man - only Jane - and you are correct that she has not been interviewed.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Gord: Here's another article from the Websleuths Archive - posted by Calikid on the media thread:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1847879.ece
Jane Tanner's report of seeing child being carried away

That is an early story in May before the official one was released in June. It does not mention Jane Tanner by name, but quotes a police source. That story was confirmed a month later when the McCanns said they were 'glad' the story was being released.